Depression Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and the need for further investigation into the Veteran's in-service psychiatric history.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a right thumb disability and an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, is remanded due to insufficient evidence. The case will be reviewed again with the possibility of additional medical examination.

The Veteran's service connection claim for PTSD, insomnia disorder, and depression has been reopened. The appeal is granted to this extent only.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not prevent her from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation prior to February 9, 2015.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection of an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and TDIU have been remanded due to the need for additional evidence, including a new VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and the need for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD. The Veteran's service includes combat experience in Vietnam.

Service connection is granted for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as PTSD and depression. A TDIU is granted for the period prior to September 22, 2014, and a rating in excess of 60 percent for left knee disability is also remanded.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder, finding no current diagnosis of PTSD and insufficient evidence linking the Veteran's symptoms to his military service.

The Veteran's generalized anxiety disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, but did not meet the criteria for a higher rating. The appeal was denied.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating of major depression has been granted with a 70% evaluation. The claims for service connection for hypertension, headaches, and obstructive sleep apnea (secondary to major depression) have been remanded due to the need for additional medical examination and opinion.

The Veteran's claim for increased ratings and TDIU was denied. The back disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA rating schedule.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher evaluation of seborrheic dermatitis was dismissed. An initial evaluation of 70% for major depressive disorder prior to October 20, 2011, and TDIU prior to February 14, 2007, were granted.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy due to insufficient information regarding flare-ups during the October 2015 examination.

The Board has denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and mood disorder. The case is remanded for a supplemental VA opinion regarding the Veteran's COPD.

The Board has granted service connection for PTSD and remanded the issues of service connection for a thoracolumbar spine condition, left hand condition, acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, and residuals of cold injury of the right foot.

The Veteran's claims for higher ratings and effective dates are being remanded due to the need for additional medical examinations.,Service connection for psychiatric disabilities, digestive disabilities (diarrhea and constipation), groin pain, and erectile dysfunction is also being remanded.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as an unspecified depressive disorder with mixed features, began during his period of service and is therefore granted service connection.

The Board has decided to remand the cases for further development and medical opinions due to incomplete records and inadequate examination findings.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone did not necessitate the care or assistance of another person on a regular basis to assist him in activities of daily living, or to protect him from hazards or dangers of his daily environment.,His spouse’s need for regular aid and attendance of another was also denied as there is no evidence that she required such assistance due to her own service-connected disabilities.